Certainly. As a Christian I believe in the sanctity of marriage and that any sexual act outside of that is a sin. So that would include same sex intercourse, masturbation, bestiality etc.

Ok, that's cool. I apologize, I was about to use words like "acceptable" to describe your view, but that's not for me to judge at all.

But your view does not give you the right to prevent others from having rights of their own, like the right to marry (outside your church) and adopt. All it gives you is the right to not practice any of those acts yourself, and have your church not practice gay marriage.

In my honest opinion, I think you've set the bar a bit high for yourself. Sexual exploration (both of the self and with a partner) is one of the important parts of development, regardless of orientation. Sexual chemistry is a real thing, and it is genuinely possible to end up marrying someone whose needs are completely different from your own (they want it more than you, or less than you, or want to do things you're not comfortable with, or are uncomfortable with the things you want, etc.) That kind of thing can ruin marriages. And, furthering that thought, I think that to protect the sanctity of marriage, it's better to have sex beforehand and be aware of each other's preferences, then not, and risk divorce. Again, I don't mean to judge your view, but I had sex before marriage and believe it did more good than harm._________________"I'm...from Earth."

I am also opposed to same-sex marriage and such, on religious grounds, but I would never, ever, ever, in a million years, tease or bully somebody that was gay. Not ever. I completely respect their sexual orientation, I just believe it is wrong in God's eyes, as written in the Bible. But I'm not trying to debate the point, I simply want to make very clear that I would never make fun of or despise/condemn a gay person._________________
"It's not about the legacy you leave, it's about the life you live." ~Mara Jade Skywalker

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:37 pm

Message

DannikJerrikoEUC Staff

Joined: 09 Nov 2011Posts: 1236Location: Nirn

I would like to agree 100% with Taral.

RE: Gay marriage: This tends to get convoluted with my religion argument. People worship who and what they like, but the second that starts affecting other people for the worse, we have to start thinking about it. We can't still follow rules from 2000 years ago, that's why we don't have execution (well, some of us).

I have had many arguments at school with someone who doesn't agree with it. I should say that he isn't just a random "gays are disgusting and gay" type guy, he's very political, and not at all religious. In England (don't know about the rest of the UK) we have Civil Partnerships, which are basically the same as marriage, but for gay people. His argument is "We've given them Civil Partnerships, and they're pretty much the same as marriage, so why can't they just be happy". My counter-argument is that the law is giving one thing to straight people (marriage) and another to gay people (Civil Partnerships), thus separating the two.

That's why I agree with Taral's marriage-purely-religious point. I think straight people should be able to have Civil Partnerships (but you know, change the name, it sounds tacky), people who aren't religious but love each other and want to be with each other for the rest of their lives, and want something as a symbol of that.

I watched a video on YouTube (here) where someone says it's a choice to be gay. I did not choose to be straight, I just am.

Funnily enough, at school there is one of those guys that says "Oh, that's so gay" meaning bad, but isn't against gay marriage._________________There's always a bigger fish - Qui Gon Jinn.

You shall learn that history is an intricate weaving of many events. No one thing can be understood without the proper context.

The best techniques are passed on by the survivors.

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:02 pm

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 1743Location: Ontario, Canada

I would like to add that, in my opinion, all what Jesus preached (love thy neighbour, etc.) takes precedence over previous text that condemns homosexuality.

Religiously we are opposed to it, but we aren't all backwards hics from the South. If asked by a gay person if I religiously opposed them I would be honest, but I would never go out of my way to condemn or to bully or to hurt someone's happiness. Its not my place. Everyone has a right to be happy. I may not agree with drug use, but I know people who smoke weed. I may not agree with gay marriage, but I'm not going to oppose it if one of my friends is doing it to be happy. Many people don't agree with my controversial views on God and the universe, but they have no right to tell me whether I'm right or wrong because its about belief and happiness. But there is a line we have to talk on this belief, because murder makes some people happy but we can't let them have it. There is an acceptable level of happy that we can allow, and things like marriage or adoption or right to live like anyone else is always going to have to be acceptable, regardless on your outlook on life. I have gay friends, friends of multiple races and faiths, and friends who hate Star Wars (horrible, right?) and I couldn't imagine life without any of them. But you can't tell them apart from a crowd, they aren't in your face about their race or their sexual preferences or their religions, and that's how I believe we have to live. I don't hate gay people and I'm not homophobic, I'm uncomfortable with the ones who have to make a show of it. If I went to a parade of straight people where men held signs that said "I Banged a Woman Last Night and You Have to Be Ok With It" I'd be just as annoyed. Over-compensating straight people are just as frustrating as in-your-face gay people. As long as you just be who you are without the need to make every minute a show, as long as you just ARE instead of being needy or acting like the whole world has to love every single thing you do or you can't be happy means you're frustratingly insecure. Unfortunately the 'Out-Loud-And-Proud' homosexual is becoming a stereotype. The less attention we draw to it the more normal it will become and then things like gay marriages and such will just be marriages like everyone else has. I don't agree with it, but I'd never stop someone if they were happy and would never force my views on them._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Last edited by Caedus_16 on Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:10 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

Quote:

We aren't all catholic, and they are the front-runners in the "we hate gay people" thing

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Are you actually saying that Catholics as a religion advocate hating gays? If that's not actually what you're saying then I'm misinterpreting something here. If you are, not only is that statement wrong, I am deeply offended by it._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:17 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 4770Location: Korriban

Cerrinea wrote:

Quote:

We aren't all catholic, and they are the front-runners in the "we hate gay people" thing

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. Are you actually saying that Catholics as a religion advocate hating gays? If that's not actually what you're saying then I'm misinterpreting something here. If you are, not only is that statement wrong, I am deeply offended by it.

I retract and will edit out that statement. Catholics that I know don't hate gay people, but take a more public stance on it. This is usually why I stay out of debates, I run my mouth (keyboard) and say things I don't mean. My statement wasn't meant to be stated the way it was. The Catholic church is not something I have real fundamental problems with at all, but their policies on things like abortion or homosexuality are merely more public and they are usually cast in a negative and intolerant light, and my statement was meant to further my view from that way of looking at things, and I mis-spoke. I apologize sincerely and very much apologize for offending you._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:39 am

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1080Location: Of Puppets

I don't want to comment on homosexuality, but I do like the discussion about "homophobia".

I'm glad that you brought that up about Phobia, Taral-DLOS. I have been talking about that to people outside of the board today. A Phobia may be accompanied by an actual response of fright, but it may also trigger physiological responses such as nausea, dizziness and other symptoms of acute anxiety. This is probably what was intended by describing "homophobia", but it should be said that Phobia is a medical condition and using it to describe someone whose opinion you disagree with is ableist, as in prejudice based on a person's functionality. If it is being used to disparage prejudice against a group (homosexuals) then it is wrong to do so against another group (disabled people).

People also told me that they think a better term to use than "homophobia" is heterosexism, or heterosexist.

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:19 am

Message

VestaraPadawan

Joined: 26 Feb 2012Posts: 41Location: Kesh

Where I live (Australia) same gender marriages aren't leagal but the government is debating whether to make it legal or not. I'm a Christian so I'm opposed to it from that view, but I also think that it is just wrong. I don't know anyone who is gay but I would never tease anyone of they were cause althought I think it's wrong its good to respect other people's views as I want people to respect mine._________________Luke and Obi-Wan are in a Chinese restaurant and Luke is having trouble.
Finally Obi-Wan says "Use the forks, Luke".

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:12 am

Message

HogyMaster

Joined: 14 Dec 2011Posts: 919Location: Nar Shaddaa

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

People also told me that they think a better term to use than "homophobia" is heterosexism, or heterosexist.

I agree that hererosexism is a better word. I don't speak Latin, but I know both homo and phobia can have broader meanings.

I know a guy who once said that homofobia should not be used the way its being used, because it literally means "fear of humans".

As for my POV: I try to live my life in a "Do to others as you would have them do to you." way, so I have no problem with homosexual marriages.

Taral-DLOS wrote:

I am a firm believer in equal rights for all people, regardless of their gender, race, or orientation. Nobody should ever be discriminated against because of their orientation.

This.

Taral-DLOS wrote:

Caedus also mentioned not liking it when people, regardless of their orientation, talk to excess about their sexual exploits. I hear that. It isn't homophobia if someone is also uncomfortable with straight people discussing their sex lives. But I'd like to offer a quick explanation as to why it is sometimes a stereotype of gays talking non-stop about their sex lives....

I know a few gay people and one of my dearest of friends is a lesbian but none of them go on and on about their sex lifes. I think this is just a stereotype.

Caedus_16 wrote:

I've been told by people that "everyone is at least bi, they just refuse to try it" and those are the kind of people that I have a problem with.

DannikJerriko wrote:

I watched a video on YouTube (here) where someone says it's a choice to be gay. I did not choose to be straight, I just am.

Anyone who has been in love or had at least "felt the butterflies" in their stomach knows there is no choice. At least not on the emotional level.

I remember hearing that sexual orientation is determined by the time you're five years of age. I don't remember much beyond that (or even if that's true), but I'm interested in hearing more of the science behind determining sexual orientation._________________I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Last edited by Life Is The Path on Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:02 am

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 6957Location: Sailing into the unknown

Taral-DLOS wrote:

The word "phobe" does not only mean fear. The word "phobe" means something more akin to "does not like". A molecule that is hydrophobic does not like water, and thus does all that is physically possible to avoid it, as opposed to something that is hydrophilic. It is not afraid of water. Therefore, homophobe is as useful a word as any. If there were a better word, I'd go for it ("sexist" would work, but that refers to gender, not orientation).

Philology time!

Merriam-Webster wrote:

-phobia 1. exaggerated fear of 2. intolerance or aversion for

Right you are. Actually, I remember hearing about hydrophobic molecules somewhere. An aversion to homosexuality seems as good a description as any. However, I question whether this 'aversion' refers to homosexuality or to homosexuals, as in shunning them. Big difference there.

Taral-DLOS wrote:

I would like to add that, in my opinion, all what Jesus preached (love thy neighbour, etc.) takes precedence over previous text that condemns homosexuality.

This simply isn't true. God still condemns homosexuality (along with lying, pride, bestiality, murder etc). Jesus didn't make up "loving your neighbour" on the spot, it's in the Old Testament.

Leviticus 19:18 wrote:

You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.

Ah, you might say, this only refers to "the children of your people" AKA the Jews. Not so:

Leviticus 19:33-34 wrote:

And if a stranger who dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Proverbs 25:21 wrote:

If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat;
And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink;

Jews like the Pharisees had added the addendum "but hate your enemies" to "love your neighbour".

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Taral-DLOS wrote:

Therefore, I accept one (and only one) alternative: marriage be distinctly religious; only members of the clergy may marry; only members of those religions may get married; marriage brings absolutely no tax benefits to the couple; and a separate thing (we'll call it Civil Union) may also exist, that does offer all the tax and legal benefits, and is open to all people.

What is 'marriage' though? If there are any of my fellow Christians on here who know better, please call me out on this, but so far as I know according to Christianity there is no such thing as "sex before marriage". Sex is marriage, or rather consummation is marriage. In the Judeo-Christian sense if a couple gets "married" and never has sex, they aren't technically married. When two people have sex they become "one flesh" and "what God has joined, let not man separate". Absolute faithfulness or total celibacy. The ceremony is a tradition (and a fine one), but so far as I know it isn't essential. So not calling a marriage a "marriage" seems like splitting hairs to me.

I feel like I should clarify before I go that I'm not against gay marriage laws. I think gay marriage is morally wrong, but I think worse things will happen (and have happened) if we organize a stupid witch-hunt against gays. The law isn't justice, it's rules for a safe, free society. For example it's wrong to insult someone, but there isn't a law against it. Nor should there be._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Last edited by Reepicheep on Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:17 am; edited 2 times in total

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:06 am

Message

comanderblyMaster

Joined: 29 Feb 2008Posts: 745Location: Denver

Taral-DLOS wrote:

In my honest opinion, I think you've set the bar a bit high for yourself. Sexual exploration (both of the self and with a partner) is one of the important parts of development, regardless of orientation. Sexual chemistry is a real thing, and it is genuinely possible to end up marrying someone whose needs are completely different from your own (they want it more than you, or less than you, or want to do things you're not comfortable with, or are uncomfortable with the things you want, etc.) That kind of thing can ruin marriages. And, furthering that thought, I think that to protect the sanctity of marriage, it's better to have sex beforehand and be aware of each other's preferences, then not, and risk divorce. Again, I don't mean to judge your view, but I had sex before marriage and believe it did more good than harm.

I agree with Taral, but since some of the folks here have a different view I would like to share my thoughts on this subject. I would say intimacy critical. Intimacy does not necessarily mean sex and sex does not necessarily include intimacy. My opinion is that intimacy - that close connection - means different things to different people. I do agree sexual exploration before hand can help marriages long term. Sometimes intimacy comes from just talking about one's desires and needs. For any marriage to last you have to find someone you can grow and change with in all aspects of the relationship.

I got married after 30 (We did live together first, and we did have sex before marriage) - as did many of my close friends. None of us have divorced and I think it has more to do with life experience and knowing what is important to one another and the desire to see each other happy. How a couple gets there - sex before or after marriage - is not the end all be all for any marriage.

I will say this though, sex with intimacy is beautiful thing and if someone only experiences it with someone of the same sex I got no problem with that, because I think everyone should get to have that experience.

Please do not enter into sex lightly without talking to someone and knowing what you are getting yourself into - the risks to your physical and emotional health along with everything else - pregnancy, etc can have impact on the rest of your (and your partners) life.

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:18 am

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 6957Location: Sailing into the unknown

^ Just so you know, I have no problems whatsoever with "intimacy before marriage". _________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 8:28 am

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 1743Location: Ontario, Canada

This brings up another point: what is "intimacy before marriage"?

I personally do not like it when people say that they are still virgins because they've done "everything but".

In everyone's eyes, including His, any form of sexual intimacy "counts". If you performed every sex act under the moon, except vaginal intercourse, it does not make you a virgin.

Reepicheep wrote:

Taral-DLOS wrote:

I would like to add that, in my opinion, all what Jesus preached (love thy neighbour, etc.) takes precedence over previous text that condemns homosexuality.

This simply isn't true. God still condemns homosexuality (along with lying, pride, bestiality, murder etc). Jesus didn't make up "loving your neighbour" on the spot, it's in the Old Testament.

I disagree on two fronts.
1- I said it was my opinion; my interpretation. Your answer implies that this is not my interpretation. You are wrong on that front.
2- It is your interpretation of very old words that God condemns homosexuality. I highlight here that many branches of Christianity, my own included (I was raised Anglican, my wife is United; I got married by a United minister) openly support same-sex marriage, and will perform ceremonies as such. If it were that set-in-stone, then would not all branches of Christianity be in opposition to same-sex union?

Furthermore, the Old Testament got a lot wrong (I have very specific examples, so please do not be offended). You can easily find language in the Old Testament that supports slavery, that supports selling your daughters to become sex slaves, that supports the power of man and the subservience of women, etc. etc etc. To bring my argument to absurdist conclusion, your argument of "It's in the Old Testament" means you should support all of those things too.

The entire point of Christianity (and, if I understand things right, religion in general, and morality tales in general), is to be good to people, regardless of who they are. The hypothetical gay couple living next door isn't doing any harm to you; they just want to live their lives, love and be loved, etc. as God made them. As a decent human being, it is your duty not to impose your values on them, but to be kind. This does not in any obligate you to join them in homosexual fun times, and therefore should not pose any issues._________________"I'm...from Earth."